ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by natewood3

Poly,

Can I ask a simple question: Have I ever said I wasn't childish? Have I ever said I am THE master at debating? Did I not say that I misrepresent other views? Have I ever said I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth? Do I do it purposefully? Why in the world do you think I am on this forum? To hear people like you criticize me for maybe not being as intellectually brilliant as you are?

Where did I criticize you on your intellect? I must have missed that one. :confused:

Look, I didn't mean to upset you. This is a real sore spot for me. I believed the way you do for the better part of my life and now that I see the absurdity of it, I can't stand seeing others sucked into this warped and all too common view of God. I think you're a very intelligent person and that's why it's all the more a shame that you view God as you do. And I should say in all fairness that although you do misrepresent the OV, you seem to do it more out of ignorance rather than purposely as some on here make a habit of doing.

Oh and for the record, after careful consideration, I must be honest and say that you're not THE master of double talk around here..... Hilston is. :eek:

(I should have put him as "Man 1" and Clete as "Man 2" in my "Pickle" skit.)
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Sozo writes:
Am I missing something, ...?
Absolutely. Several things. You're apparently missing several things. Among them:

(1) An adequate knowledge of Greek to understand that a single adjective can convey case, number and gender;
(2) A clue about what a pathetic and abject fool you've made yourself out to be;
(3) The wherewithal to admit when you've made a false accusation;
(4) The humility to repent and apologize;
(5) The clarity of perception that would allow to actually feel embarrassment;
(6) The desire to learn

I may have missed some. But it shouldn't matter. I doubt anything I listed above will register with you.

Sozo writes:
... or did you forget to show me where the word "men" appears in the original text?
Even if I were to show you where "men" appears in the original, I'm guessing you'd just respond with just another "anyway you slice it" assertion. It's obvious that you don't have the vidalias to admit that you were wrong and to apologize for your false accusation. It's also fairly plain that you're utterly incorrigible. That said, why should I think that showing you where "men" appears in the original would make a dent in your igneous skull?

Sozo writes:
btw... I am not an Open-Theist.
Then it's worse than I thought. At least, with Open Theists, I can blame their myopia on their false doctrine. In your case it must be sheer intellectual hebetude.

Sozo, just for fun, consider the following verses. Each of them has the phrase "all men" in the English, but only has the word pantas in the Greek [which you had the asinine temerity to claim did not occur anywhere in the Greek New Testament -- we're still cracking up over that one]. Ask yourself if the word "men" should be dropped from these verses, since neither aner nor anthropos occur in them. Then ask yourself where the KJV translators might've gotten the idea to add the word "men" in their translation, even though neither aner nor anthropos occurs in them.

Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mt 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Mt 26:33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
Mr 1:37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
Mr 5:20 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.
Mr 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Lu 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;
Lu 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
Joh 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Joh 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Ac 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Ac 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Ac 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
Ac 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Ac 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
Ac 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Ac 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Ro 16:19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Co 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
2Co 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;
Ga 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
1Th 3:12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:
1Th 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 3:9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
2Ti 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1Pe 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
3Jo 1:12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.
Re 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

By the way, I don't really expect you to do this. That would require something the existence to which you've not given a skoche of evidence: Rational faculties.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Hilston
By the way, I don't really expect you to do this. That would require something the existence to which you've not given a skoche of evidence: Rational faculties.
Jim... was that comment really necessary?

Why do you flame out like this?

It's kind of sad really and it does little for your case. It blows my mind that you actually refer to yourself as a pastor. :nono:
 

Sozo

New member
Hilston...

I have access to several Greek Lexicons, and the word pantas does not appear in any of them. I also have a Greek dictionary on the KJV bible, and the word pantas does not appear in it.

Once again, I am telling you that, whatever source you are using to claim that the word "men" appears in the text, is the result of someone adding it to try and bring their understanding into the text. The word is "all", and it refers to judgment, not men. You are tainted by your own agenda, and I should have directed "pas" of my insults at you.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Knight

Jim... was that comment really necessary?
Necessary and appropriate. You have the gall to talk to me about what comments are necessary? Look at his words, Knight. Look at his arguments. Look at his bald refusal to admit a false accusation. I don't give a rip about name-calling or insults, but when people disrespect the debate and make inane claims with impunity, that disgusts me. And look at where your focus is. You don't call people to the carpet for making false accusations or telling lies, but for telling the truth!

:darwinsm:

Originally posted by Knight Why do you flame out like this?
flame-out n. : the unintentional cessation of operation of a jet airplane engine. [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary] My flames are intentional, Knight, so the word doesn't really seem to apply.

Originally posted by Knight
It's kind of sad really and it does little for your case.
Read the thread title, Knight. My "case" is consistent with the subject. By the way, if Sozo believes the future is open, doesn't that make him an Open Theist by your definition?

Originally posted by Knight
It blows my mind that you actually refer to yourself as a pastor. :nono:
I don't. That's your first false assumption. Your second false assumption is that pastors somehow have more restrictions on their behavior. That's unbiblical.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Hilston


I don't. That's your first false assumption. Your second false assumption is that pastors somehow have more restrictions on their behavior. That's unbiblical.
Gee.... I wonder where I would get a false assumption such as this. :think:

Your profile states....
Occupation: Journalist, Artist, Pastor, Web Designer
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by Hilston

By the way, if Sozo believes the future is open, doesn't that make him an Open Theist by your definition?
Do you believe that Open Theism is solely defined by teaching that the future is open?

Do you believe it is closed? If so, then why do you request that I repent?
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

Hilston...

I have access to several Greek Lexicons, and the word pantas does not appear in any of them. I also have a Greek dictionary on the KJV bible, and the word pantas does not appear in it.
OK, putting laughter and ridicule aside for the moment. Please let me help you so you can understand why the Lexicons appear to be letting you down. Which ones do you have? List their titles, and I will pull mine down and give you the specific reason, page number and everything, as to why you're not finding "pantas" listed as an entry.

Originally posted by Sozo
Once again, I am telling you that, whatever source you are using to claim that the word "men" appears in the text, is the result of someone adding it to try and bring their understanding into the text.
Is that your claim regarding every verse I listed in my previous post?

Originally posted by Sozo
The word is "all", and it refers to judgment, not men. You are tainted by your own agenda, and I should have directed "pas" of my insults at you.
Are you familiar with case-, number-, gender-agreement in Greek grammar? In Jn 12:31, the word "judgment" (krisis in the Greek) is a singular, feminine noun. The word "all" in verse 32 (pantas in the Greek) is the plural, masculine form of the adjective pas. For "all" to refer to "judgment," as you are claiming, the Greek would have used pasan, the singular, feminine form of pas.

Here's an example:
Mt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.

The Greek word for "all" is pasan, the feminine singular form of the adjective, pas. But what does it modify? Look for the nearest noun that is also singular in number and feminine in gender. That word is "righteousness," which is singular and feminine in the Greek.

If you followed this, it should be clear to you why "all" cannot refer to "judgment" and why the translators appropriately added "men" to the English. Note also that they also were kind and honest enough to put "men" in italics, thus informing the reader that the word is not in the original text, but was added by the translators to assist the reader in understanding it the way a Greek speaking reader would have understood it anyway.

I hope that helps. Please give me some indication that I didn't waste my time sharing this with you. By the way, I never went to seminary, so you don't have to be afraid that I've been brainwashed by one.

By the way, it's one thing to answer the question: Occupation? And to fill it in accordingly. It's quite another thing to go around referring to myself as a pastor. If you recall, there was a thread in which several people started calling me Pastor Hilston. I begged and pleaded for them to stop calling me that. It's just not biblical. Incidentally, I don't go around referring to myself as an artist either, but that is one of my occupations.

Notice most of all this: Nothing is said about the substantive part of my response, only the easiest thing to pick on is rejoined. Thanks, yet again, for contributing to the accuracy of this thread's title.
 
Last edited:

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by Hilston

Which ones do you have? List their titles, and I will pull mine down and give you the specific reason, page number and everything, as to why you're not finding "pantas" listed as an entry.
The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament... The various readings of the editions of Elzeiver 1624, Griesbach, Lacmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth. Gerhard Kitttles Theological Dictionary. Thayer's and Smith's. Strongs NASB Exhaustive :noid:
Are you familiar with case-, number-, gender-agreement in Greek grammar?
Yes
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So Jim... now you have me curious.

So.... you are not a Pastor but you play one on the internet?

Is that the deal? If you are not a Pastor why would you list that you are a Pastor in your biography?
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament... The various readings of the editions of Elzeiver 1624, Griesbach, Lacmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth. Gerhard Kitttles Theological Dictionary. Thayer's and Smith's. Strongs NASB Exhaustive :noid:
Great. So if you look up "pas" in Thayer's, does it list Jn 12:32 as one of the occurrences? And when you look up Jn 12:32 in your 1624 TR, does it have "pantas" in the verse? It should. That's because "pas" is the lexical form of that adjective, and "pantas" is the plural, masculine inflection of that adjective.

Did you already know this, or is this new information to you?

Hilston asked: Are you familiar with case-, number-, gender-agreement in Greek grammar?

Originally posted by Sozo
Yes
Then do you understand why "all" in Jn 12:32 cannot refer to "judgment" in verse 31?
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by Hilston

And when you look up Jn 12:32 in your 1624 TR, does it have "pantas" in the verse? It should. That's because "pas" is the lexical form of that adjective, and "pantas" is the plural, masculine inflection of that adjective.
It's not.
Did you already know this, or is this new information to you?
Something different, anyway.
Then do you understand why "all" in Jn 12:32 cannot refer to "judgment" in verse 31?
I understand why you would think that, but I don't buy it.

What do you think of this?

"Instead of παντας, the Codex Bezae, another, several versions, and many of the fathers, read παντα, all men, or all things: so the Anglo-Saxon, {A.S.}, I will draw all things to myself. But παντα may be here the accusative singular, and signify all men."

Overall, the context of the verse makes no sense to refer to "men". What is the implication of Jesus drawing ALL men to Himself? From your perspective, is this a reference to the reconciliation?
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Knight
So Jim... now you have me curious.

So.... you are not a Pastor but you play one on the internet?

Is that the deal? If you are not a Pastor ...
I didn't say I wasn't a pastor. I just don't refer to myself as one. I'm also a Girard High School graduate. I don't refer to myself as that either. I'm only a pastor to my church; no one else. It isn't a title. It is a description of role I share with four other men as an occupation and a responsibility.

Originally posted by Knight
... why would you list that you are a Pastor in your biography?
I didn't. Under "biography," I listed the following: "Former atheist, former Arminian, former Covenantalist."

I listed "pastor" under "occupation": "Journalist, Artist, Pastor, Web Designer"

So, Knight, you have me curious: Does it at all occur to you that this kind of obfuscation is actually on-topic, given the subject of this thread? With every irrelevant question and argument, with every inane claim, illogical proposition, and irrational distortion, you guys only further affirm the various things that have been said about Open Theists thus far in this thread.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Hilston,

Now is your chance, what is the correct definition of immutable?

Also impassible?

You said your not allowed to define them. I'm giving you the chance so I can better understand what it is your trying to convey.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

It's not.
What's not? Pantas isn't there?

Do you understand the difference between the lexical entry in Thayer's and Kittel and the various inflections of any particular word?

Originally posted by Sozo Something different, anyway.
Like what?

Originally posted by Sozo
I understand why you would think that, but I don't buy it.
You have no problem with adjectives having a different gender and number than their referrents? Would it matter to you, Sozo, if someone described you as females?

Originally posted by Sozo
What do you think of this?

"Instead of πantas, the Codex Bezae, another, several versions, and many of the fathers, read πanta, all men, or all things: so the Anglo-Saxon, {A.S.}, I will draw all things to myself. But πanta may be here the accusative singular, and signify all men."
That sounds like a load of rubbish. "Panta" as accusative singular? Where did you get that?

Even if you take the Bezae reading with "panta", you're still stuck with having a plural neuter, which cannot refer to judgment, which is singular feminine. So either way, you have no grammatical means of getting "all" to refer to "judgment." You don't have to buy it if you don't want, but don't complain if I start referring to you as "women."

Originally posted by Sozo
Overall, the context of the verse makes no sense to refer to "men". What is the implication of Jesus drawing ALL men to Himself? From your perspective, is this a reference to the reconciliation?
Yes; as is often the case with the "all," it does not mean "all without exception," but rather "all kinds" or "all manner of."
 
Top